Sharon Keogan Calls to Repeal Planning Regulator, Restore Local Control

This is in relation to the office of the planning regulator and I believe that has been the biggest stumbling block when it has come to building houses in this country. You talked earlier on this year of appointing a housing czar. I think we already had one. This particular regulator has caused huge issues for city and county councillors. It sets objectives for the county's development plan and it determines planning strategies and sets objectives for each of the local authorities. The amount of land that was dezoned in this country by the planning regulator was criminal. The bill last year reinforced the role of the office of the planning regulator, which from time to time has sought to undermine planning decisions. Ireland has one of the weakest systems of local government in Europe. We should be looking to change this and considering that most councillors are familiar with their area, they should be the ones entrusted to make decisions around planning and zoning and other issues. I know that the county councillors at this moment in time are waiting for those numbers to come out from your department, minister, with regards to the numbers that the county councillors would be allowed to build. You are looking for lands that are zoned, that may be zoned or may have services on them. Nearly half of those lands were dezoned by the planning regulator back in 2018. I remember being in the council at the council at the time, we had to de-zone land. And here we are, shouting for housing here today. For me, that office has been the biggest stumbling block to housing in this country and it should be terminated. Mr. Minister. Thank you to address Amendment 4 as tabled by Senator Keoghan. It seeks to repeal the office of the planning regulator, DOPR, as everyone will know, was established on April 2019 on foot of recommendations made by the Mann Tribunal, which made 64 recommendations aimed at significantly enhancing the transparency of planning in Ireland against the backdrop of significant historical deficiencies in relation to decision-making on local authority development plans or other planning functions. The OPR carries out a range of important and significant functions which assist with the effective operation of the planning system as a whole. I am therefore opposing this amendment, as I believe that if this amendment was to be accepted it would have a negative impact on the planning system in its entirety. However, I will address the point in relation to the zoning of land. Both Minister Brown and I will be writing to local authorities very shortly in relation to their housing growth requirements. We have already informed local authorities to commence the variation process in terms of zoning of land. It is obviously a matter for each local authority as to where they zone particular lands, but certainly from our perspective from the department we will be writing with the housing growth requirements very shortly and we expect local authorities to be able to implement those as quickly as possible to ensure that we have an adequate amount of zoned and serviced land across our country in order to ensure that we have the homes that we require for our people right across this country. I will speak on Senator Keogh. I will speak on the next couple of weeks. Shortly. Shortly. What does shortly mean? Shortly. Is it in the weeks? Months? Very shortly. Very shortly. Fantastic. Thank you. Do I wish to move the amendment? Yes, I move. Thank you. I will speak on amendments number 528 which propose to repeal sections 21 to 24 of the Principle Act. These sections as they stand embed the National Planning Framework deeper into our planning system and I must say I have serious concerns about the direction. Let me be clear, the National Planning Framework is not law. It was never voted on by the people. It is a policy document, one that has become a straitjacket for local democracy. It has been used to override the will of electric councillors to dictate from Dublin what should be decided in Drogheda, Donegal and Dingle. Planning should be bottom-up, not top-down. But what we see in these sections is the opposite. We see a centralised vision being imposed on communities regardless of their needs, their geography or their aspirations. Section 21, for example, reinforces the idea that local development plans must conform to national policy. But who defines that policy? Not the people, not the councillors, not the communities. It is defined by civil servants and consultants and your fellow in the OPR, often with little or no connections with the areas affected. Let me be very clear. The last vote here. The OPR de-zoned 28,000 hectares that would have delivered 100,000 homes to the people in this country and were in a housing crisis. We bring in emergency legislation for stupid things, but we cannot bring in emergency legislation to build houses for our people. Section 22, 23 and 24 continue in the same vein. Embedded a system where local authorities are implementers, not decision-makers, where councillors are sidelined, where the lived experience of communities is ignored in favour of abstract targets and glossy strategies. I have said it before and I will say it again. Ireland is one of the weakest systems of local government in Europe and instead of strengthening, this legislation continues to hollow it out. We need to trust our local representatives. That is what this legislation is about when it comes to planning. Trusting our local representatives. Trusting the people that are on the ground to make the right decisions, to build the houses in the right places, to know where the water services are. Councillors are not stupid. They do not put planning in areas where you have not got services. They know their areas, they know what works and they are accountable to their people. Not to a framework, not to a regulator and not to a department. That is why I am calling for repeal of these sections. Let us restore balance, let us restore democracy and let us give local government the respect and responsibilities it needs. Thank you, Senator. Senator MacDude? No? Okay. No one else? Minister? Do you want to respond? Thank you very much, Lasko Heerlich. Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8, as tabled by Senator Keoghan, seek to delete section 21 to 24 of the Act of 2024, which relates to the national planning framework. I cannot accept these amendments, as the MPF has provided for in the existing and new planning legislation and sits at the apex of the hierarchy of our statutory spatial development plans, the purpose of which is to ensure the sustainable development of our urban and rural areas to 2040, with the core objectives of securing balanced regional development and a sustainable compact growth approach to the form and pattern of future development. Provision for the MPF is appropriately and necessarily dealt with in the Act of 2024. The MPF is a long-term strategy for the spatial development of Ireland to promote a better quality of life for all, with sustainable economic growth and an environment of the highest quality as its key underlying principles. The subsequent review of the regional spatial and economic strategies and the review of individual city and county development plans to align with the MPF and the Rhesus establishes a robust integrated hierarchy of spatial plans within Ireland. In turn, this will inform the making of decisions in relation to planning applications in a robust and efficient manner, assisted by the statutory decision-making timelines contained within the 2024 Act. The Act requires that the MPF to include policies and proposals for the furtherance of a number of objectives, securing national and regional development strategies, including maximising the potential of our regions, supporting proper planning and sustainable development in urban and rural areas, supporting the circular economy, securing the coordination and regional spatial and economic strategies and development plans, providing for land and sea interactions and securing coordination with the National Marine Planning Framework and the integration of the pursuit and achievement of the National Climate Objective and the National Biodiversity Action Plan into plan-led development within the State. This plan-led approach to development reaffirmed and further enhanced under the Act of 2024 will continue to align strategic planning policy from the national level through to regional and local plans, giving effect to real sustainable outcomes for our regions, our cities and our communities, both urban and rural. Both houses of this Oireachtas approved the revised MPF in April of 2025 and I think that is important, given the comments that you have made a short time ago, Senator, in relation to the fact that there has been no vote in relation to this. The revised MPF provides the basis for the review and updating of regional, spatial and economic strategies and local authority development plans to reflect matters such as the updating of housing figures, which you spoke to in your previous set of amendments, which I also informed the House we would be writing to local authorities very shortly in relation to updating their development plans in that context. I am satisfied that the existing provisions regarding the national planning framework are appropriate and therefore I cannot accept these amendments. Thank you, Minister. Senator Keoghan, how stands Amendment No. 5? Are you pressing it? Are you pressing Amendment No. 5? I am. You are? The question is that the new section be there inserted. Those in favour say TAH. TAH. Those against say NIL. The question is defeated. Amendment No. 6 is a new section already discussed with Amendment No. 5. How stands the amendment? Senator Keoghan? Yes. I am. You are pressing it. The question is that the new section be there inserted. Those in favour say TAH. TAH. Those against say NIL. The question is defeated. Amendment No. 7 is a new section already discussed with Amendment No. 5. Are you moving the amendment? I move. Are you pressing it? I am pressing it. The question is that the new section be there inserted. Those in neighbour say TAH. TAH. Those against say NIL. NIL. If the question is defeated. Amendment No. 8 is a new section already discussed with Amendment No. 5. The new section be there and searched. Are you moving it? I move. Are you pressing? I'm pressing. The question is the section be there and searched. Those in favour say no. Those against say no. No. The question is defeated. That section 3 stand part of the bill. Is that agreed? Agreed. Section 4 is a government amendment. Amendment No. 9 is a government amendment that I shall move. It's a new section that the new section be there and searched. Minister, do you wish to move? Thank you. I move Amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 9 amends Section 30 of the Act of 2024 to clarify the trigger for the first review of an existing regional spatial and economic strategy under the Act of 2024 and is necessary for the commencement of Part 3 of the Act of 2024. Section 31 currently provides that a regional assembly shall commence a review of their releases not later than six months after the publication of a revised or new MPF under Chapter 2 of the Act of 2024. As a revised MPF was recently published under the Act of 2000 and will continue in force under the Act of 2024. This amendment provides that a regional assembly shall commence a review of their releases not later than six months after the commencement of Section 216 of the Act of 2024, which provides for the existing MPF to continue in force. This ensures that once Part 3 is commenced, the releases will be reviewed in line with the requirements of the Act of 2024 and updated accordingly. This ensures that the plan-making hierarchy is followed and allows the releases to reflect the MPF and any subsequent development plans to be made in line with the releases made under the Act of 2024. Going forward, any future new or revised MPF will trigger the releases in place to be reviewed. Thank you. Thank you, Minister. It goes to the heart of what I believe is missing from the bill, real empowerment for local authorities. Amendment 11 proposed a new Section 42A which would allow local authorities to purchase unzoned land for residential and other strategic uses. This is a practical, common-sense measure. Right now, councils can only buy land that is already zoned, but that land is often more expensive, more contested and more difficult to develop. Why not let councils act earlier? Let them identify land that is suitable, buy it at a fair price, zone it appropriately and get on with the job of delivering homes. This is how we used to do things in this country. When we were poorer, we built more, because we trusted local authorities to lead. Amendment 12 complements this by restoring discretion to elected councillors in zoning decisions. It inserts a new subparagraph into Section 46, making it clear that councillors, not just officials, should have the final say on whether land is zoned for housing or other uses. Zoning is a reserve function, or at least it used to be, but more and more we see national policy overriding local decisions. That's not right. If a council wants to zone land for housing or for enterprise or for community use, they should be able to do so without having to refer to the diktats here in Dublin. These amendments are about trust. Trusting local knowledge, trusting local democracy, trusting the people who are closest to the ground to make the right decisions for their communities. If we are serious about solving the housing crisis, we need to cut through the red tape and empower those who can act. That starts with local authorities. Thank you. The Minister, do you wish to respond? Yes. Thank you. The amendment 10, 11 and 12 was jointly tabled by Senator Stevenson and Higgins. Amendment 10, 11 and 12 all relate to the zoning of land. Amendment 10 seeks to provide that the regional economic and spatial strategies shall allow for the zoning of land for particular use of affordable housing. I cannot accept this amendment as zoning requirements are already adequately dealt with within the Act of 2024. The purpose of land use zoning is to indicate the development management objectives of the planning authority's administrative area, generally whether residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, open space or otherwise are a mixture of those uses. While land is zoned for residential use, it is not appropriate to designate the housing type or tenure attached to such zonings. Land use zoning is determined at the development plan stage, however, and I cannot accept these amendments. Section 43 of the Act of 2024 outlines the content requirements of development plans. Section 43 of the Act of 2024 provides that the written statement for an integrated overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of an area included in the development plan shall include zoning objectives for the zoning of land for a particular use or mixture of uses. Prior to the making of a development plan, a planning authority shall prepare a housing strategy for the purpose of ensuring that the housing development strategy makes adequate provision for housing of the existing and future population needs of an area within the development plan in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of an area. The housing strategy shall take account of the existing and likely future need for affordable housing. Section 242 provides that up to 20 per cent of land used for residential purposes, including land which is not zoned for residential use or for a mixture of residential and other uses, but in respect of which permission for the development of houses is granted, must be provided for social, affordable or cost rental housing. I am satisfied therefore that the existing provisions regarding affordable housing are appropriate. Amendment 11 seeks to provide that local authorities should have the power to purchase unzoned land for residential use. It would not be appropriate to provide for this within legislation. It is a matter for the local authorities concerned to acquire land on an ongoing basis for their own use. There is no preclusion on a local authority acquiring any given land bank. The future use of that from a zoning perspective is a matter again for local authority members within the development plan process or any variation that may occur to that development plan. Amendment 12 seeks to provide that in zoning, regard shall be had to the members of the local authority who shall have discretion in approving whether land should be zoned for residential use or other forms of use. Responsibility, as I have just said previously, zoning is a reserved function of elected members of local authority and in preparing their statutory plans, including in relation to the zoning of land for particular purposes, the elected members are required to consider and be consistent with the framework which is set down from the MPF and the regional economic strategy and relevant planning guidelines. Of particular relevance to the zoning of land for residential development, a ministerial circular on the housing supply target methodology for development planning guidelines for planning authorities were issued in 2020 to all local authorities under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The guidelines introduced a standard national approach to be employed by each planning authority in projecting housing supply targets for each of the specific six-year period when reviewing city or county development plans and following on from that assessment, the zoning of sufficient land to meet those housing targets. I am satisfied, therefore, that this is sufficient and for those reasons, I cannot accept the three amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.